Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15

Thanks Ned for your X.4xx review here.

I agree, when it comes to gateway transformations lacking a 1 to 1 
map, there are things that require a design decision.  Sometimes you 
have no choice but to follow the side, the rules, of the end-gate.

--
HLS

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> So what does all this mean? It means that if you gateway to a pure X.400
> environment that rigorously follows all the rules and uses P7 to talk to 
> MUAs
> you end up with more or less the operational behavior Keith wants, 
> although the
> defaults may be to auto-discard. (I didn't find a default in the standard
> itself, which means it's probably operational-profile-specific.) 
> however, if
> you're dealing with a real-world implementation that doesn't use P7 or 
> worse,
> operates with an Internet rather than X.400 kant, you're not going to have
> per-user controls for this and you're likely to see such messages discarded
> automatically with no recourse.
> 
> I will also note that while we don't support X.400 any more, since the
> expiry-date check was implemented at the MTA level it is actually 
> something we
> still support doing. Of course I have no idea if anybody actually have the
> feature enabled any more - I suspect not but there's no way to be sure.
> 
>                 Ned


-- 
HLS